@lanodan what i'm saying is there's no need for it to have members.
I think the distinction is more along the lines of who do they serve. An association serves its members' common interest. A foundation serves its written purpose. A corporation serves its shareholders.
@lanodan yeah by funds I meant more as an "it owns stuff". I think of them as smart contracts without blockchain - they have a statute ("bylaws" in English but almost no other language calls it that) that governs what it can do with the assets it owns. And the foundation itself has no owners.
My perception is that I'm saying I find coding in Python less enjoyable because of lack of monads, and you're saying that if I was using Python differently, I woulf enjoy it more.
Then we arrive at a point where you're saying you prefer more explicit which is why you enjoy a particular pythonic way of writing code.
To which I say I don't enjoy that, I prefer more implicit.
I was writing a script that converts ss(8) output to prometheus metrics. I ended up writing a class that `emit` method, and manually passing it as 1st argument throughout all the parser functions like a savage.
> I personally value knowing what exactly from current scope is passed into the function I'm calling
With monads, that's explicitly specified in the type of the function. For me that's enough, and passing it explicitly the way I'm doing in Python feels like boilerplate.
Returning a MetricsSet from functions would require knowing the implementation of MetricsSet inside each of those functions. Merging it after every call without a programmable semicolon would be cumbersome. I guess I could override some operator like += or |= to make it more conscise... and I guess that would look fairly readable...
but that's what a MonadWriter would do under the hood, except without all the boilerplate, and in a way where the caller determines the impl
@ignaloidas@algernon Zen of Python is self-contradictory, you can prove anything you want from it
I think it's ok to prefer an explicit addition like you suggest. But I don't prefer it, and I think it's also valid to not prefer it. Therefore, I still think "you shouldn't want monads" is false.
Is there a CAD or 3d modelling software with similar interface to Valve's Hammer? As in, a 3d view you mostly don't use, and three axis-aligned orthographic projections on which you select things and drag edges and stuff?
@Suiseiseki > Apparently for LTE, IMS doesn't work
what's VoLTE then?
I know circuit-switching doesn't work for LTE, and IMS (a.k.a. the combination of P-CSCF, I-CSCF and S-CSCF) was a way to get voice working over a packet-switched network...